70-200 2.8IS or 135 2.0

what's the limit on IS in terms of shutter time? will IS have much significance when the shutter it set to times more than 1 second? if so..how far can you really take it? (im sure part of this comes down to how steady one can hold a camera, but what about for the typical person? if that is possible...)

Rent an IS version if you can.
At 1/30th the IS will definatly help with camera shake, but if your subject is moving to fast it is for nought.

unix04 wrote in post #2150794
what's the limit on IS in terms of shutter time? will IS have much significance when the shutter it set to times more than 1 second? if so..how far can you really take it? (im sure part of this comes down to how steady one can hold a camera, but what about for the typical person? if that is possible...)

IS will give you about 3 stops of handholdability, according to manufacturers. So, if as common wisdom says you need at least 1/60 to take a reasonably sharp picture with a 70 mm focal lenght (depending on how steady your hands are), in theory IS will allow you to use a 1/8 shutter speed.

Shutter speeds set to more than one second? IS does not perform miracles... IS still depends on your hands. In any case, as said, IS only helps with camera shake, not with subject motion.

Common wisdom says that to freeze people normal movements you need a shutter speed in between 1/60 and 1/125, and obviously much faster if we consider sports, so a lens with a faster aperture is the only solution if you already cranked up the ISO and still you cannot get these speeds with the lens you are using.

IS (or a monopod / tripod) may give you a sharp background at 1/30, or even lower speeds, but if the people are not still you will get blurry subjects anyway.

Instead of IS you might want to get a decent monopod - it has a similar effect. If you're going to be stationary and discreet, it's not bad. Plus you can use the monpod AND a faster lens if need be...

Sure it takes some room but we didn't get DSLR's because they were small...

Oh no, when my New xxxxx arrive.
Waiting Game always.

Tareq wrote in post #2151350
Oh no, when my New xxxxx arrive.
Waiting Game always.

Tareq,

Re: your signature; It's "on the way" to you..."In the way", means that it is obstructing you...

Enjoy that new lens...I just got a couple of new ones and still have the 135mm on my wish list...

One of the new lenses that is on the way to me is the 70-200mm 2.8L IS...I'll be using it for wildlife photos of deer...A prime like the 135mm would be great to have...you could use it for Macro too..

Good Luck

amarasme wrote in post #2151025
IS will give you about 3 stops of handholdability, according to manufacturers. So, if as common wisdom says you need at least 1/60 to take a reasonably sharp picture with a 70 mm focal lenght (depending on how steady your hands are), in theory IS will allow you to use a 1/8 shutter speed.

Shutter speeds set to more than one second? IS does not perform miracles... IS still depends on your hands. In any case, as said, IS only helps with camera shake, not with subject motion.

Common wisdom says that to freeze people normal movements you need a shutter speed in between 1/60 and 1/125, and obviously much faster if we consider sports, so a lens with a faster aperture is the only solution if you already cranked up the ISO and still you cannot get these speeds with the lens you are using.

IS (or a monopod / tripod) may give you a sharp background at 1/30, or even lower speeds, but if the people are not still you will get blurry subjects anyway.

thanks! that was very helpful to know!

flipm3 wrote in post #2148741
so i take many indoor staged events (ie. piano recitals, dance performances, etc). i currently have have the 2.8 non-IS. im debating should i sell that and get the IS with a price difference of 600-800 dollars or just buy a 135 2.0L for around 900? will the IS make up for that speed? i really like having the versatality of the zoom. i hear it is just as good as most primes. i already feel that with my non-IS, its tack sharp and razor fast, but im wondering if that IS will give me the edge...your opinions please.

I was just thinking

For the same price of the 70-200 2.8 IS, couldn't you get like a 85 1.8, 135 f2.0L, and 200 f2.8L. I'de rather that over the 2.8 70-200 personally cause of weight, but that's just me. With the double rebates I'de assume the 85 1.8, 135 f2.0 and 200 f2.8 might even be cheaper. Might even be able to add a 100 f2.0 in there, although it'de be a tiny bit pricier then the 2.8 IS probably.

BTW, if you were to get all 4 primes, you'de get $200 USD in rebates.

convenience vs speed? is IQ almost the same at common f-stops?

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2151472
I was just thinking

For the same price of the 70-200 2.8 IS, couldn't you get like a 85 1.8, 135 f2.0L, and 200 f2.8L. I'de rather that over the 2.8 70-200 personally cause of weight, but that's just me. With the double rebates I'de assume the 85 1.8, 135 f2.0 and 200 f2.8 might even be cheaper. Might even be able to add a 100 f2.0 in there, although it'de be a tiny bit pricier then the 2.8 IS probably.

BTW, if you were to get all 4 primes, you'de get $200 USD in rebates.

yea i was thinking about doing something like that...but im just worried about having to switch often...and me only have one body :-/

flipm3 wrote in post #2152120
yea i was thinking about doing something like that...but im just worried about having to switch often...and me only have one body :-/

I don't think it'de be that big of a problem. I think I'de rather have multiple light, cheaper and sharper lenses that one big expensive heavy lens. I'de hate to lose one or have it stolen or something.

I personally don't really like the idea of carrying two bodies around though. I was thinking of getting maybe a backup body in the future like a 300D, but I don't know. Probably best for me to wait until something new comes out I really want body wise, and keep my 30D as a backup or second body when that happens.

should i sell both of my 2.8 zooms and go all prime?

flipm3 wrote in post #2152313
should i sell both of my 2.8 zooms and go all prime?

Don't ask me, I am sure somebody else can weigh the pros and cons out for you though.

I still think a walk around zoom is important. I have a 70-200 F4L on the way, and even if I do proceed to buy the primes i want, I'll be keeping it. Primes are definitley sharper, but sometimes you need zoom.

unix04 wrote in post #2151596
convenience vs speed? is IQ almost the same at common f-stops?

I would say the primes will perform slightly better (although probably negligible unless you pixel peep) at common f-stops. But you will loose the versatility of the zoom.

From the OP messages I think he does not like the idea of getting rid of the zoom, hence our suggestion of keeping the zoom and adding a relatively inexpensive 85 f1.8 (135mm on his 30D) for such situations.

By the way, for the OP, those lighting conditions seem pretty bad. Are you using evaluative metering or spot metering to measure available light?

johnstoy wrote in post #2151440
Tareq,

Re: your signature; It's "on the way" to you..."In the way", means that it is obstructing you...

That is by no means an exercise in grammatical rectitude (sick.) only. Sometimes, indeed, escessive/overpowering gear could get in the way of developing that photography cunning and artifice.